Feeds:
Posts
Comments

[Continued from Part 1, Part 2]

The Case for Civilizations

A Response to the New Yorker

https://media.newyorker.com/photos/59b197320a52a80d35bc87dd/master/w_3000,c_limit/170918_r30523.jpg

New Yorker’s illustration of John Lanchester’s claim that, between a contest of two ways of life, even though they may be world’s apart, the hunter-gatherer tribe is to the modern (western), agricultural society superior — in some (moralistic) ways. Hence, the New Yorker’s rhetorical question: ‘Did our hunter-gatherer ancestors have it better?’ That question wasn’t just bad. Lanchester’s answer turned out to be utterly worse.

*

Imagine life in southern Africa’s Kalahari, your village hemmed in by stunted thickets, without leaves, beyond which the lions, hyenas, deer and baboons roam and maybe the gem of a pool of muddy water. The floor is dry dirt, and almost nothing grows. To avoid laundry and conserve water, wear as little as possible. Lunch, brought in yesterday by a group of hunters, will be served soon buffet style but, unlike those laid out at the Mandarin Hong Kong, there is just one primary course: fresh kudu meat. It’s within expiry date. Dinner is stashed away somewhere. This may be hand-to-mouth existence but there is enough food to go round, without conspicuous consumption and it satisfies the UN-designated calorific value, 1700-2400 kcal per day dependent on gender and age. The calories work out to less than 200 gm of meat (one slice, size of a playing card, split for brunch and dinner) and 250 gm of starch, which equals two medium-size bowl of rice porridge.

In the New Yorker, one of the world’s finest written magazines, John Lanchester makes the case for such a Kalahari life that, in a sort of way, had it better than how we live today. This is so, even though — Lanchester will never admit to it — not all civilizations are equal.

By civilization, Lanchester has to mean western civilization because that’s the only one he lives in. His civilization and ours may have the same style of beginnings, that is, emerging from a settled, agrarian life with mass grain cultivation (concentrating on one or two crops and, alongside it, animal domestication). The centerpiece in his idea of civilization is this: the creation of a modern state with its apparatus of taxation, bureaucracy and writing (for law and record keeping).

Lanchester makes no comparison between his present and the pre-modern, western civilization forms. Instead he uses, for contrasting effect, ancient Mesopotamia, the region in present Iraq, as well as the Kalahari Bushman tribes living at present along the borders of Namibia and Botswana. Why take some place so far away and so different in culture?

This question isn’t rhetorical. It is asked because places matter; civilizations emerge distinct to the geography of the land and its people’s habitat. The Bushman hunts because that is all there is to do, water is too scarce for mass cultivation of crops and because game is plentiful. In the Pacific island of Kiribati, for example, you won’t expect to find deer to hunt nor enough arable land to grow maize or rice. Fishing is all there is. Naturally, therefore, the civilization and hence its culture, including system of government, if any, are going to be markedly different from, say, a Sahara or a European country.

Lanchester makes no distinction between a civilization and a state with its system of government, taxation and militarization governing a clearly defined population within fixed boundaries. Indeed, citing James C. Scott, he conflates the state and government, rather than as separate, distinct phenomena, like civilization and states are separate things. In so doing, he doesn’t seem to consider a hunter-gatherer society as a form of civilization. On the contrary a hunter-gatherer band is regarded as the opposite of a civilization, a sort of a free-wheeling society without clearly defined hierarchies and organised rules with nobody in charge. In another (colonial) word, ‘uncivilized’ which is, of course, politically incorrect.

But, couldn’t there be a state overseeing without actually ruling a hunter-gatherer society — that is, a nomadic band within a settled civilization and given state protection? Of course that’s possible. The jungle borders of Laos, Thailand and China’s Yunnan (where today’s first generation descendants of hunters have ID cards) teemed with self-governing tribal bands as late as the 1930s and were left alone until the White Man brought in their Jesus Christ, their fucking ideologies (democracy, capitalism, communism, socialism) and then war and war and more war. Life, as they say, has never been the same since.

Until the arrival of the White Man en masse, the Pacific island societies (Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu, New Guinea, Cook Islands, Vanuatu) comprised pseudo states, some with a ruling Queen (Tonga & Samoa and yes, queen) overseeing bands of people who lived on harvesting the sago palm or digging up taro roots, the food staple. In between they hunted wild pigs when not fishing. Malaysia’s jungles in the Peninsula and Sarawak still have remnants of that existence.

All that still represent diverse multi-cultural forms of civilizations, and they are types of civilizations nonetheless. It may be unsettled or unsecured life but settlement anywhere is caveat on habitat. In the Kalahari, a nomad, dependent on a pair of legs, can roam till the sun dies. In the Pacific, on the other hand, an island the size of Singapore is all that there is to go around so that the New Yorker question about which way of life is better — or which place produces a better civilization — is as misplaced as it is absurd.

For the Neolithic or Agricultural Revolution to spent a thousand years or more to first overtake hunter-gatherer society then to be itself replace by industries, it says more about the enduring power of civilization to shape a way of life than it is the other way around; Lanchester suggests it’s agriculture than birthed civilizations. He does not make clear though, is this Neolithic Revolution accompanied invariably by state power? His implication though is that state rule — that is, political life — is inevitable with a sedentary life. “There is,” he says, “a crucial, direct link between the cultivation of cereal crops and the birth of the first states.

From there Lanchester flies off into leaps of logic. After agriculture, he adds, came a litany of civilization’s failures, such as the Stalin’s farm collectivization that killed millions. Citing Jared Diamond, he says the Neolithic Revolution became “the worse mistake in human history.”

O! Really?

All along we thought the worse was the invention of Jesus Christ.

A proto-state is a pristine state, one without the watermarks of any earlier social, regulated form of organization. Mesopotamia was such a proto-state born from the womb of wheat farms, Lanchester says, citing evidence from the anthropologist James C. Scott who wrote the book on Malaysian farms, Weapons of the Weak.  But, argues Lanchester, look what has Mesopotamia gotten for its once glorious agriculture civilization? Gone today, wrecked by its own doing, including slavery and war.

Lanchester’s put-down of civilization as an accumulation of human disasters — from hunter gatherer to farmer to civilization and state — resembles the storyline at Friedrich Hegel who insists that the histories of the world evolve in dialectical form (mind vs nature, self vs Other, freedom vs authority, knowledge vs faith), one invariably giving way to another by a warbling linear progression towards a penultimate sort of state.

State? What state? A political state? Yes, part of it. A mind state? Yes, that too.

Hegel calls this state of political being or sense of state ‘geist‘, loosely meaning mind/spirit, a sort of freedom. Upon this idea, Martin Heidegger came to make the German Nazi party as emblematic of geist. (To fathom that, think in terms of Umno and Malaiyoo ketuanan, that chicken feed fascist version of geist.)

To us, the Chinese and the Far East, Hegelian geist is, really, just passe stuff, 3,000 years late to be precise.

The Chinese call that sense of eternal being Dao: if you can name it, you’d lose it. It’s Nothingness. It’s what it is and, hence, what it does: the apple tree will always apple, nature always nurtures, and if you know what it is you have arrived at, you’d see it is actually Nothing. Buddhism (and even its predecessor Hinduism) call it ‘nirvana‘, absolute knowledge arriving at nothing. Bliss.

This is the trouble with White people: they made ado much about nothing and thinks it so profound. Typical of this worldview, Lanchester wants to be empirically right and logically true at the same time.

This isn’t always necessary nor possible because evidences of fact don’t always turn out to be stone markers of truth. Once Lanchester deploys western methods of analysis — that is, interpreting the rest of the world on his own terms — just as Hegel did and Heidegger and Satre after that, the world they attempt to portray collapses into meaninglessness.

It doesn’t make sense to see how the life of a Bushman is comparable to someone working in a New York office. Nor to compare the civilizations of ancient Mesopotamia to the American prairies, much less to attach to their respective farmers any moral (Christian) significance about greed and covetousness.

Like many western anthropologists before him, Lanchester was simply looking for historical evidences to fit given conclusions. Or worse, liberal biases.

One result of this disastrous academic approach: Lancester, as did Scott and Diamond, failed to see that a hunter-gatherer band is a state in itself, on its own terms.

Take the Bushman tribe where, according to the anthropologist James Suzman, the man who brings home the meat faces a ‘ritual of insulting the meat’. This happens in which recipients of the meat get rude to the young provider when slicing up the carcass for distribution, in near equal proportions. Such a ritual must mean that instead of glory, the chief provider gets slapped. Done often enough — imagine a man has to hunt every few days since meat is not refrigerated — who wants to do it only to be insulted?

Something is also not right with the Suzman story line about a lonely hunter sharing his bounty with everyone because, unless he can operate alone like a lion or a run like a cheetah, the prospect of bringing in game single handed is quite small. Human dominance over other animal species is its ability to think and work in collaboration with others. This being the case, where work is a collaborative effort, then sharing is obligatory when not mandatory. Bushman civilization could simply contain the constituent of a state different from what is found in the West, certainly, with multiple political actors, the main ones being all young, all hunters, all fit and healthy good runners, all equal or near equal in status. Call it, if you like, kinship authoritarianism.

An identical social, kinship sharing-ritual goes on in New Guinea (until the Americans and the French arrived) but flipped around. There, because game is so scare, the man with the most domesticated animals must throw a huge, island wide party regularly so as to redistribute his stock of meat. Instead of being insulted, the man is retained on the pedestal; he continues to remain Chief. (For more on economic redistribution in kinship politics see for example ‘Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches‘, 1975, by Marvin Harris, 1927-2001.)

A similar idea underpins how and why Li Ka Shing is never revered in Hong Kong as the richest man. No, not revered; never. Instead, he is held out as the exemplar of what a man with deep pockets must do. That is, his obligations, responsibilities and duties that come with owning so much: You got rich out of us, now give it back! Hence, you read about him building schools and orphanages here and there in China mainland; and during lunar new year, dispatching truck loads of goodies into the mountains and villages. This redistribution idea has gone on for thousands of years in Chinese society and was central to the establishment of countless clan and trade associations, village societies, secret societies as conduits for redistribution. The rationale is this: Given fortuity, anybody can be rich and Li Ka Shing is no different. But, it takes a good, wise man to know what to do with the wealth accumulated.

In spite of the evidences to be found in every land outside of America and Europe, Lanchester still insists that the Bushman ritual of sharing is unique and peculiar only in a hunter-gatherer society. But why? Why go looking for the thing only in a preferred place when it is everywhere? The only plausible explanation is this: Seeing it his way could only have come from his liberal, political prejudices (egalitarianism) and Christian morality bias (God created all man equal, which is fucking false on all three counts, God, the creation, and equality). Predictably, Lanchester pronounces the Bushman society as superior to the modern (western) form: “affluent but without abundance, without excess, and without competitive acquisition.

Well, well, well if that were true — the existence of this glorious, stateless, abundant, equal opportunity Eden — Lanchester might consider emigrating to Bushman country.

You see, the facts may be correct, but is the truth true?

Going by western definition of a state, the tribal society is a political unit to itself; it’s only that Lanchester refuses to acknowledge this. It has its rules — only that a shaming culture is not the kind of thing westerners are used to. A shaming ritual is a form of rule.

Bushman culture fits Confucian political philosophy, which says that every individual is a political unit and, flowing from the person, the family a microcosm of the state upon which the nation-state rests and is an extension thereof. Hence, the government, public property and public institutions are frequently addressed in street parlance as “yeye 爷爷” or grandfather.

Once interpreted on those terms, you can see why the willingness of the Bushman hunter to bring home meat then sharing it must mean this: what’s good for him and his family is also good for the tribe. And for that, for the good of the family and everyone else, the hunter is willing endure the insults. Lanchester, as it is with Suzman (who studied the Bushman) and Scott and Diamond, were only willing to see events top-down, from a societal, worldview point rather than viewing life from the individual and family up. The Bushman’s material, physical priorities in life can’t be far different from the Chinese. It is only how life is sorted out to make those priorities happened is shaped differently. That’s a matter of culture.

***

Postscript

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJ9hR8yXkAINql2.jpg:small

In Lanchester’s world — civilization — only the numbers are race free. The rest, especially the language and his anthropology, are White. In ‘The Case Against Civilization‘, it has to be white-bias (liberal) so that reading it is much like a black girl reading ‘Jane Eyre:

[Charlotte] Brontë sees Jane as an ideal version of womanhood. That version, comely and small, has to be absent of moral imperfections. It has to be white.

Imagine then when, for as many as 20 years, Hannah Yeoh or Yeo Bee Yin passing through the same, white civilization classes (above). They’d come out complete white crackpots, Anglophiles. White, Lanchesterian racism has been perfected into a scholarly art form, like Charlotte Brontë and her book are racist perfections. Her readers think nothing of it but only moral modernism and goodness. Tyrese Coleman:

To call this book feminist is to forget about me, that I am a reader too, that I am a woman too. That according to Brontë, I am a savage.

And Hannah Yeoh has said Brontë is one of her favorite authors.

***

Lanchester’s interpretation of the Bushman life reflects the extent to which egalitarianism has become, on western terms, an ideological and a (Christian) moral fighting tool rather than existing simply as the necessary basis for organizing society; whether the society is agrarian or hunter-gatherer, it doesn’t matter. Egalitarianism is not moral injunction. It is the consequence to a kind of economic redistribution because to force people to share is to work against the human impulse that we have priorities. That is, we simply will love some people more than others, and for good reason.

The tribe is a state in its rawest form where everyone is his own government with the life of one stitched to the next and next in a chain of inter-dependency because this is the best possible way to survive in the barbaric wild. Like a family is self-governing so is the tribe. It governs by governing the least, with the minimum of rules, some disguised as rituals befitting their environment. It governs without any sophisticated apparatus or a bureaucracy, but some form of security organization must exist, even if not to ward off other tribes, at least to fight the lions and prevent those fucking hyenas from making off with the baby. It’s an arrangement that works well in small Kalahari groups or in secluded island societies but not in, say, China.

Why is it that Lanchester and the West still refuse to see the Bushman tribe as a form of civilization with a rudimentary government and sprouting elements of statehood?

To do so, his entire case that the modern world is somehow not right would collapse; it would end the western insistence that lives across the planet are comparable and being comparable must possess determinable yardsticks. Other than common physical needs, these yardsticks tended to be moral (Christian) in quality and logical in interpretation. The White man has the command of technology, language and global reach to determine what those yardsticks might be. But why should the rest of the world live on the moral dictates of Jesus Christ and be fitted to the terms western civilization has established for itself — this square peg in round holes thing?

The White man has done good, yes and true, but he has also become the enemy to other civilizations when, like Hegel, insist there is only one history to follow. Other civilizations, or their intrinsic worth therefrom, are snuffed out. The millions of death from Stalin collectivization arose directly from a single (western) ideological, political act that had nothing to do with the purpose of sedentary agriculture. With these western exports of murderous ideas, the world wouldn’t need civilization nor the state to do the killing. Lanchester goes down the same folly path. Using Scott’s “study” on the disastrous effects of agriculture (slavery, oppression, war) has had on Mesopotamia, Lanchester then argues for being wary of the settled life that produces civilization and statehood. This is plainly absurd; it’s logical solipsism at its worse. On point of fact, there is no evidence to show if one event birthed the other or even created the conditions for slavery and war as if without the state or without farming people don’t kill each other in mass numbers.

China, both its past and the present, stands as a counterpoint — a complete refutation in fact — to western claims that the civilization has become a danger to itself.

Civilization in China, the state by extension, permitted sedentary agriculture to flourish. It was never the other way around. Until the Shang dynasty (商朝 Shangchao, c.1600 BC–c.1046 BC) and even onward to the Qin dynasty (c.220 BC), farming was a dangerous enterprise because the neighbor or the nomads on horseback along the present regions of the Great Wall came in galloping to raid the granary, often making off with Han girls for bonus. These were the xiongnu 匈奴, roaming bands of animal herders no different in numbers and in way of life from those found in Africa, with a chief and a coterie of hangers-on that became the bureaucracy. The xiongnu were the gatherers of other people’s grains, China’s, and were hunters of Han women — not kudu deer and wild pigs.

Nothing romantic about hunter-gatherers, Mr Lanchester.

Against these barbarians, militarization of the peasants became necessary and with it the growth of Chinese state power, improvements in writing, record keeping, development of ferrous making, gunpowder, paper and so on. And with these, elements of industries sprouted. Unlike those cited by Lanchester wherein states taxed by cereals, the first rule of Chinese taxation was compulsory conscription (think Fa Mulan): young, healthy boys for the defense of not just the country but a way of life. This is collaboration and defense sharing, no? Only later were salt and currency added as taxes.

Civilization and state power made possible mass cultivation — and a settled way of life.

By the Han dynasty era, so successful was this development of civilization that a distinct Chinese culture emerged that exists in recognizable form today. Another evidence of the success: population growth from, say, 60 million to 80 then 110 and on and on (see graph below). The Chinese came to be known in street parlance as huaren 华人, an ‘Accomplished People’. Records in the 書經 shujing as well as Sima Qian’s ‘History of Han‘ (again, the work of strict record keeping) spoke repeatedly of the xiongnu as well as of entreaties to the emperor to keep the peace at all cost; it was his primary purpose, his station in life. If heaven breaks loose 天下大乱, he goes. Now that the hunters and gatherers were pacified, enter Confucius: how to keep the peace in time of peace. For that, culture…. Chinese culture.

*

The xiongnu 匈奴

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4d/XiongnuMap.png/220px-XiongnuMap.png

Roughly, the area covered by the xiongnu 匈奴, collective name for varied hunter-gatherer tribes in central Asia. For more than 3,000 years they refused to leave alone the southern settled agrarian life, that is, the Chinese. Other than to kill these motherfuckers, consecutive emperors had to build, rebuild, and extend the Great Wall just to keep them out of China. That work did not stop for a thousand years. By the time the Mings sailed into the South China Sea, they were — no joke — still at it.

*

Graph: China’s demographics the last 2000 years.

https://i2.wp.com/www.china-profile.com/data/figures/fig_population_0-2050_s.gif

Chinese sedentary agriculture was so successful that it brought vast improvements in health, reflected in lifespan and to how tall.

***

不裝飾你的夢 Never embellish your dreams…

 

 

Advertisements

Everything that could be found inside a vagina had been found.

overheard, apparently, in the US Patent Office

 

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/2017/08/CULT_Omnivore_Maynard_Web_Art/lead_960.jpg?1505234314

On Joyce Maynard:

The Personal-Essay Boom Is Over,” declared the headline of a much-circulated article on The New Yorker’s website earlier this year. It was the “God Is Dead” of the Jezebel generation, reporting that the craze for essays with titles like “My Gynecologist Found a Ball of Cat Hair in My Vagina”—a story by a writer named Michelle Barrow that became a fleeting sensation in 2015—had come to an end. To borrow a late-19th-century saying about the United States patent office, everything that could be found inside a vagina had been found.

Let young essayists find hope in the life and letters of Joyce Maynard, who has withstood market corrections to the personal-essay economy for 50 years, ever since her first one appeared in Seventeen magazine when she herself was 14. She is the Joyce Carol Oates of women’s confessional essays, firing them off in such rapid succession that she will probably begin and finish one in the time it takes you to read this paragraph. Her subject is herself, and although she has but one life to live, she is never short of material, because she reads and rereads her own story according to market demands. Teach a woman to describe a ball of cat hair, and she will sell an essay. Teach her to regard that ball of cat hair as an illustrative example of a handful of recurring themes, and she will sell essays for a lifetime.

The Boomers are getting old now; we know this because there’s a Fidelity ad that plays “In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida,” and Joyce Maynard has started to appear in the AARP magazine. Her new book, The Best of Us, is about a topic of interest to this aging demographic: widowhood. In her late 50s, she met a man online and they married. Tragically, he was soon diagnosed with cancer; he died three years after the wedding. It was a cruel thing to happen, a wretched turn of luck.

Just as she dropped the depth charge of her mother’s quasi-incest into an early chapter of At Home in the World yet expected readers to stay focused on the fact that J. D. Salinger was a bad boyfriend, The Best of Us tucks a whopper into an opening chapter. At age 55, her children grown, Maynard had “missed being a parent as much as a person crossing the desert misses water.” So she sent away for a CD-rom from an international adoption agency, liked what she saw at an Ethiopian orphanage, and traveled to Africa to adopt two sisters: “They were ravenous for meat. ‘I love you I love you I love you,’ they told me.” But she soon tired of the responsibility. After 14 months, she drove them across the country and handed them off to a different family, and they were adopted a second time.

So there, on page 56, she loses the crowd. When she describes meeting her future husband just six months later and having the time of her life with him—traveling, eating, sleeping in the nude, throwing a wedding rapturously covered by The New York Times—the reader is back with those little girls she impulsively adopted and then abandoned. Always, Maynard wants our sympathies. “Of all the losses I’d known, this had been the worst,” she tells us about relinquishing the girls, a few pages before going on to describe her new beau’s silver Porsche Boxster.

And so yet again, we leave the girl writer where we found her, in the pages of her endless testimony, burbling it all up, the stream of experience unmediated by any meaning beyond itself. If Saint Augustine was the father of the autobiography as a form of confession, Maynard is one of the mothers of the “My Gynecologist Found a Ball of Cat Hair in My Vagina” genre. “When I got two cats, I knew their fur was going to get everywhere,” that essay begins, its writer surely aware that never since the beginning of time has there been anybody just like her.

***

https://spectator.imgix.net/content/uploads/2017/08/GettyImages-600009500.jpg?auto=compress,enhance,format&crop=faces,entropy,edges&fit=crop&w=820&h=550

On Karl Ove Knausgaard:

Here is the opening sentence of Karl Ove Knausgaard’s meditation on beds.:

With its four legs and its flat, soft surface, the bed gently accommodates one of our most basic needs: it is good to lie down in bed, and it is good to sleep in them through the night.

Well, you learn something every day.

Actually you do, if you are very young, or at least you are meant to. For this is one of Knausgaard’s letters to his unborn daughter, and he’s written one book for each season, 20 letters per month, for her to be able to see the world, or for Knausgaard to see it again, anew. It is a mission freighted with honourable intent.

He writes on subjects that are dear to an infant’s heart: beds (as we have seen), but also daguerreotypes, Flaubert, thermos flasks, August Sander (you may well ask. German photographer, very good, not well known over here). Also: wasps, labia, lice, teeth, and the sun. Among others. You get the idea. Anything he fancies, really.

For some people it is difficult to find the right tone when speaking to children. On the one hand, they resent being talked down to. On the other, you have to make allowances for their smaller frame of reference. Knausgaard, it has to be said, manages, for the adult reader at least, to get things exactly wrong, quite a lot of the time. (The adult reader is the one he needs to worry about because children, even the ones who have made it out of the womb, do not have £16.99, or the Norwegian equivalent, to spend on books like this and, besides, have other claims on their attention.)

So when we read, in his essay on chewing gum, that it usually comes in two forms, either as small pillow-shaped pellets or as flat oblong sticks, we may feel a certain impatience. The child, on the other hand, may be mystified by an airy reference to Montaigne, Shakespeare and Cervantes (who are mentioned because it was during their time that the last war was fought in Sweden, which is where Knausgaard lives).

That said, there are many times when the book is rather charming, and he does succeed in making us look at things a little differently. Wasps, for instance, like miniature Fabergé eggs, or knights dressed for battle. I may have scoffed at his description of the bed, but when he imagines transparent walls, and being able to see everyone else flat out on them, then yes, maybe that is a little spooky.

Then again, for every observation like that you get another one like this:

The mouth is where the sense of taste is located. This is where it is determined whether something tastes good or bad, sour or sweet, salt or bitter. The mouth is also the place where food is mashed together.

I really don’t have the heart to quote any more, even the bit in this passage where he gets to Aristotle. Let me instead add an aperçu of my own, in Knausgaardian style. The brain is where the sense of intelligence is located. This is where it is determined whether a book is worth reading or not, boring or interesting, irritating or illuminating. I have used mine and made my decision.

***

 

Part 1/3 is here.

Behold your Merdeka…

60 Years On, Thought Slavery

Image result for sea games opening

The portrayal of Malaysia: Baju and songkok as if the Chinese (and Indians and others) don’t exist. It’s the same Malaysia, 60 times over, where Anglophiles pine after — ‘how much we love our homeland,’ yada, yada, yada — and we aren’t talking about what to wear for a ceremony. It goes deeper, and this is the thing motherfucking Anglophiles, bearing names like Josh Hong, Lisa Ng, Charles Santiago and Dennis Ignatius are incapable of understanding.

Then there are the Malay Anglophiles…, same kettle of fish, enslaved to the same thoughts, trapped in the same White man’s dichotomous world where if not Jesus it’s Allah.

If, in opening ceremonies like the SEA Games, Malaysian participants were to wear their traditional clothing, why would that be wrong? Why would it be politically incorrect? How could such outward expression of pluralism negate, even undermine, domestic Malay political power?

Below is a variation of the hanfu 汉服, the 2,000-year-old official history description of varied Chinese clothing designs dating from the Han dynasty. The two-piece design below used on the occasion of a Confucian ceremony follows closely ancient styles with a cross collar upper, outer garment, loose sleeves and a waist sash, but narrower than what’s seen.

Note men and women wear the same thing, again illustrating the origins of Chinese culture was never gender-specific nor ‘sexist’ even though 5,000 years behind, yet far more ‘progressive’ than the Christian West today trumpeting about their liberal achievements.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Xuanduan.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Ruqun.svg/650px-Ruqun.svg.png

Thanks to Jian my Love for teaching me real fashion. Below, she, insulated, rightfully, from Western poison in ‘dictatorial, communist’ China,  is ‘multi-tasking’, a term that has caught on among HR managers and office department heads, those stupid Anglophiles again. She has far more freedom to do what she wants, believe whatever she wants, or not believe, think whatever she wants then say it. She is freer than Mahathir Mohamad 100 times over.

*

Chinese in Search of a Nation

For more than 3,000 years, China has had the characteristics that today define modern statehood: fixed geographical boundaries and formal institutions, in particular government, taxation, education, and military. It especially had a population who felt being part of the nation-state. Su Dongpo 苏東坡/蘇東坡, 1037-1101:

I face all these bound prisoners, helpless
little people scrambling for food, snared
in the law’s net, and no reason for shame.

Could I free them for the holiday at least?
I brood in shame before ancients who did.

People were identifiable by a particular era, such as tangren (唐人) or people of the Tang. Xinjiang, birthplace of Li Bai, was referred to in the historical records as the ‘western frontier people‘ or 西疆人 as opposed to 新疆 New Frontier that is today the Anglicized translation.

The same idea above — about people of a nation — is echoed in Pete Teo’s ‘Merdeka‘ short film and spoken of by James Chai in his letter to Malaysiakini.

This is a perennial, tiresome topic: 7 million Chinese in Malaysia who’s without a nation, one part stuck there, one part wondering when and how to quit it, another part gone, and others like James Chai pining over a non-existent nation.

The idea of a Chinese without a nation is quite the opposite of Singapore as a nation with 4 million citizens but no distinct Singaporean people. Asked them what is a Singaporean, their tongues warble and soon get tied into knots.

Singaporeans are identifiable only by a passport, nothing else, not genuine culture nor specific traits of a people. Its history is purely colonist British; it survives purely on western Law (Constitution), like America, that’s superimposed on the artificiality of its nation-state status, like America and Australia are artificial creations of White people, like Britian was created out of the rib of Romans. Take away the UN recognition and grant of legitimacy, Singapore ceases to exist. Remove the Queen, the Union Jack, the national anthem, and all that business about God saving the Queen, Britain ceases to be applicable. It dies an instant death.

China, in contrast, is independent of these external appendages. It is distinct Chinese, of Chinese ancestry, the inheritors of Li Bai, and has no place for Indians and Pakistanis (in Hong Kong) nor Africans (lodged in Guangzhou).

Conversely, nothing outsiders do, can or will affect China existential being. China is, consequently, superior to the nation-state artificiality; it is a civilization-state. It can’t be destroyed like the Roman empire was destroyed or broken up like Europe post-perestroika borders, or like Syria and Iraq; Japanese murdered 25 million Chinese, two times the population size of then Malaya, and China is still intact; its history still there and Su Dongpo is still our inspiration.

Thus, we don’t welcome immigrants because they are not Chinese. This means we are racist (says Wong Chen of PKR)? So what.

China is Chinese because it’s home, identity, and the ultimate source of the Chinese being.

You want a better life than in India? Want to escape ISIS in the UK? Want racist-free liberalism? Go to Australia or America. Or try Singapore or try moving to the Hadi Awang’s Kelantan or Wong Chen’s Selangor. There Arabs can kill all the British they want; it ain’t our business.

In Indonesia, the Hindu gods come and go, while Buddha is reduced to a pile of stones in Borobudur; to all of which the Indonesian soul is replaced by Allah.

In parallel, Malaysia exist purely by force of arms and by power, pure unbridled state — and religious — power. This artifice known as Malaysia had never, to begin with, existed as civilization and never will it become one. The White man’s legal and nation-state contraptions saw to it while the Abrahamic Gods had long ago dismissed any such potential of being a civilization when Mahathir Mohamad’s Allah (along with Hannah Yeoh’s Jesus) killed those other gods, such as those found in the Kerling rubber estates.

All the above is to serve as an answer to James Chai’s sentimental claptrap, pining to remain in Malaysia. He pretend he is some great patriot but it’s to an artifice he wants to return to. And for what? Over what?

Chinese being great patriots of China goes without saying. But we are patriots not to some flag or system of government (are these not pure artifice?). No, we are devoted to our land, our history, our way of life — it’s the best way — and why? Because it’s a population, a body of people, who ultimately makes up a nation, beginning with a family and onwards to a village, county, province and so on in a series of concentric circle relationship. A nation arises from an individual extended to family, which is the beginning of a political unit, so that the only way a nation flourishes is when the individual flourishes and families are preserved at all costs.

It’s never the other way around that the like of James Chai and Pete Teo talked about; they are a people looking for a nation to belong to and, therefore, could find none. (In Syria, a nation is destroyed once its families are uprooted. The families flee.)

Malays? They are a people trying to manufacture a nation, artificially, from a paper blueprint, drafted by foreigners, that instruct Malays how to be Malay; a nation constructed not bottom-up but from the top, the sultan, with a foreign God overlooking. Thus, when Merdeka came, Malay freedom was already prescribed; they would lose their freedom forever and don’t know it. The more the Malays drew from the blueprint to assert power, the more they find restrictions. In between, meanwhile, Malay families and kampungs were raped and plundered (think Hadi’s Kelantan or Najib’s Malaysia). So much for Merdeka, Malaiyoo….

When Chai and Teo talk of Malaysia and in terms of hope, what the fuck is this contraption called ‘Malaysia’ and what the fuck is this thing called ‘Hope’. Small wonder, Malaysia is so screwed up especially since Mahathir’s days when Malaysia was considered, and still is, as exclusively Tanah Melayu to which Lim Kit Siang’s answer is ‘Malaysian First’ as if that was never self-evident to begin with so he had to demand for it therefore.

These ignorant, stupid Anglophiles…. They are a people without a history, without arts and culture, other than to live by British Ceylon tea and an American-styled Constitution invented by self-serving Pakistani Anglophiles and White people; they are without a true family other than for sons and daughters going by the same surnames.

They are, in Plato’s words, a ‘cave’ people, thriving purely by punching on shadows so that each time Mahathir, LKS et al bitch about the local state of affairs, they merely reaffirmed the hollow shell of their own lives that produced all that they are complaining about: Mahathir wanting to destroy the beast named Najib Razak he personally and directly created; Kit Siang wanting the system replaced that wouldn’t have existed if not for DAP’s existence. (Daodejing: the tall and the short define each other, black and white made each other.)

Saying the same thing, S. Thayaparan’s ‘‘Citizen’, a Bitter Reminder of Merdeka‘ contains the same insight (but erroneously titled because Malaysiakini’s Anglophile editors are a pretty stupid lot and could never get it):

When the citizen gripes about corruption and racism, it is like the tantrums of a child unwilling to accept responsibility for his or her actions and blaming authority figures for all that it wrong. Typically, in this type of mindset, it is the authority figure that could have done better. That could have changed something. That could have lived up to expectations. The child/citizen merely makes demands but has no real idea of what it takes to fulfil these demands.

Give us a better country. Give us a system free of racism. Give us system free of corruption. Give us all of this and all we will do is vote for you. So, politicians say those things. They say they will give us a better country. They say they will give us a system free of racism. They will give us everything we claim to want. And in the end, they know that their lies serve our apathy…

 

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/878033266783252480/Pw1n7FWy_400x400.jpg

After a stint in the UK, Ah Chai 吖菜 thinks he knows all there’s to know: notice how Anglophiles like him (or Hannah Yeoh) always picture themselves in some tie, in some foreign land with oak trees and farm cottages for background, not kampung paddy fields. It’s like bragging to everybody, ‘Look at me. I made it out of the swamp!’

Life — as a Malaysian — is conducted according to a fucking English degree. Those stupid Chais and Yeohs, slaves to the White man. Yet they talk about how they love Malaysia, shitting daily banalities. Along side which Anglophiles talk of ‘hope’ as if there’s no hope, not even for the Jameses schooled by White assholes. We, the Chinese, call their school experiences , ‘mind washed’.

Can’t find a home in Malaysia, Mr Chai? If you answer him to say, that’s because it isn’t there, he’d still scratch his head wondering, Why not? These pitiful Anglophiles, suffering their Satrean existential angst.

*

 

 

 

 

 

https://shuzheng.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/a2df8-munkc3a1csyeccehomok1896.jpg?w=626&h=405

“Behold, the man!” by Mihály Munkácsy, 1896

*

Shortly before his crucifixion, Jesus was presented to a hostile crowd. Present was Pontius Pilate, serving emperor Tiberius and was the then governor of the province named Judaea and had in the trial of Jesus asked to spare the man’s life. Said Pilate in Latin: “Ecce homo.” — “Behold the man!”

That was one of the first western acts of populism. It suggests two things: (a) beware the populist, the man appeasing the crowd; and, (b) beware of god. Live by sword, die by the sword; live in god’s name, die in his name.

God’s murder of humanity has since taken many forms. Imported into Malaysia via Arabs and Indian Muslims this murderous God/Allah has filtered into the like of Hadi Awang, Mathathir Mohamd, Umno ustaz and Hannah Yeoh and Yeo Bee Yin.

The filtered down version still requires first, identification of enemy. Because, without one, who do you murder? Almost routinely, therefore, one finds in Muslims  — and Christians — this penchant for seeking enemies, and so filled them with the same god-murderous capacity that got Jesus himself killed — and that’s for no fucking good reason.

“Behold, the enemy of the Malay.”

Mahathir named the Chinese as the enemy of the Malays; Umno today named Mahathir; Syed Saddiq, Mahathir’s latest fanboy, says it is Najib Razak. All of them were wrong.

No; no Muslim (nor Christian) should lead Malaysia. They are dangerous when not useless. Confucius 400-500 years before Jesus was right: Beware the god! Beware even those who claim to represent God.

The Chinese stuck by this entreaty and it has stood them well for 3,000 years. Whereas Mahathir, Hadi, Hannah et al went on to embrace this Allah voodoo and ever since the NEP and racism flourished: more people die today on wars fought over principles than wars fought over food, territory and women.

The worse in all of that? God has never been made to account for killing Man. And especially for killing the humanity in Man. Friedrich Nietzsche tried unpacking this god-murderous capacity in the last of his books Ecce Homo after which he turned mad.

Beware the God. Beware Allah.

***

 

“We live here and now. Everything before and in other places is past and mostly forgotten”.

“What could – what should be done, with all the time that lies ahead of us? Open and unshaped, feather light in its freedom and lead-heavy in its uncertainty? Is it a wish, dreamlike and nostalgic, to stand once again at that point in life, and be able to take a completely different direction to the one which has made us who we are?”

“We leave something of ourselves behind when we leave a place, we stay there even though we go away. And there are things in us that we can find again only by going back there. We travel to ourselves when we go to a place though we have covered a stretch of our life, no matter how brief it may have been. But by traveling to ourselves we must confront our own loneliness. And isn’t it so everything we do is done out of fear of loneliness? Isn’t that why we renounce all the things we will regret at the end of our lives?”

“When dictatorship is a fact, revolution is a duty”.

“Is it ultimately a question of self-image that determining idea one has made for oneself of what has to be accomplished and experienced so that one can approve the life one has lived? If this is the case, the fear of death might be described as the fear of not been able to become whom one planned to be. If the certainty befalls us that it will never be achieved… this homeness, you suddenly don’t know how to live the time, that can no longer be part of a whole life”.

“The real director of life is accident, a director full of cruelty compassion and bewitching charm.”

“The decisive moments of life, when its direction changes forever, are not always marked by large and shown dramatics. In truth, the dramatic moments of a life determining experience, are often unbelievable low key. When it unfolds its revolutionary effects and insures that a  life is revealed in a brand new light, it does that silently. And in this wonderful silence resides its special nobility.”

“In youth, we live as if we were immortal, knowledge of mortality dances around us like a brittle paper ribbon that barely touches our skin. When, in life does that change? When does the ribbon tighten, until finally it strangles us?” — Amadeu de Prado

*

秋天了吗  我回来了 五天到

For the Reform Agenda:

Hunt Down Shahidan Kassim

*

Image result for shahidan kassim

The forces that destroyed the lives of Indira Gandhi and her children and that of Chen Yimin (陈乙敏) as well are the same forces at work with that man above: that piece of kampung pig head and motherfucker named Shahidan Kassim. Versus the cocksure, lawyering, liberal types, Syah Redzan, below, guess who’s going to win?

Syahredzan

The War Against Man, Against Malays

In Malaysia, God Opens a New Front

*

Normal people would consider Shahidan Kassim a whacko and so are likely to ignore or dismiss his threat to hunt down atheists (remarks on YouTube), Malays in particular, to ‘bring them back and fix their faith’.

There are two lines of possible defense for Shahidan:

(a) he has a constitutional point of view to do something about atheists, and

(b) he has a Muslim leader role to safeguard the interests of the ummah, the Muslim collective, an argument that runs something like, On ‘judgement day’ he will be asked by Allah what he had done for Malay-Muslims (don’t laugh, that’s what he said).

Shahidan isn’t the only official who wants to beat up other people because they aren’t like him; a day before him there was Rizal Mansor, some Rosmah aide it seems.

Which is to suggest that there is now a war, another Allah’s war, launched against people, atheists this time. The war begins with and focuses on Malays.

More dangerous than Shahidan, the madman, is the idea. It parallels ketuanan in its insidious quality and when rooted it becomes near impossible to pull back even though you see the devastation by ketuanan everywhere.

This havoc isn’t unlike the ones in Syria or Libya or other Muslim countries. Ketuanan’s havoc might not be scorch earth type but this also means its economic and social affliction spreads further and deeper against the individual souls. Common to both in their self-destructive capacity is, of course, Islamic culture, history, politics and society.

The plain fact is Umno and PAS, Hadi Awang and Mahathir Mohamad subscribe to the same religious dogma that fuels ISIS terror. It is the same Allah they pray to, the same Allah whose name they invoke when hunting atheists or chopping heads. ISIS and Shahidan work out of, and flow from, the same religious principle — the ummah.

Malaysia’s Constitution, where Shahidan is concerned, is merely added justification used to fit a multi-religious context.

Like Rizal, Shahidan might be wrong but it didn’t matter. Saying it, he takes Malays and Malaysia not to uncharted territory — it is on the same grounds of apostasy and ummah preservation. Shahidan simply slipped in via another door so as to build a case to deal with people who talk too much and take too much personal liberties he doesn’t like, possibly even to jail some of them. This is an old war fought on a new front.

That he has to invoke the Constitution and then some voodoo Judgment Day, with some fictitious demand by some fictitious god, shows he wants to give law a moral compunction: Religion is not refutable since it is never demonstrated truth in the first place. Thus, Shahidan (and those muftis) can say anything he likes and he will even get away with murder, like ISIS and like Arab towel heads.

What does Shahidan want out of his anti-atheism? Only he knows the answer. But, for sure, it keeps Malays as Muslims, even if nominally, and it keeps up with the high Muslim population relative to the Chinese and others. That, in its turn, provides the political and electoral objectives for the survival and existence of Umno and PAS. It’s this political objective that explains the war language tone in Shahidan’s ‘hunt them‘ and in Rizal’s ‘plague of atheism‘.

Consequently, political parties with a religious objective is antithetical to a secular constitution. Whereas secularism attempts to order life and a nation from a non-religious standpoint, Umno and PAS are forever trying to introduce religious injunctions into the constitution so that on point of fact, and law, those parties are anti-constitutional and must be abolished.

*

Below, from Twitter, Malay responses to Shahidan

*

*

Tweets like those above aren’t arguments but are merely little bullet blanks — only longer in blog postings — fired to make a sound without impact against the Shahidan proposal.

Like it is with numerous life and death issues, and against a formidable, insidious enemy such as god, Malaysia’s tweets and blogs reduce Shahidan to a war of words without attrition, just so for entertaining their reader fans.

As a result, Shahidan gets away with persecuting the innocent, people who, as with pregnant, single Malay girls or a kampung child, have done nobody no harm. This is just so wrong, yet, nobody — these stupid Anglophiles, so full of righteousness — takes it up against Shahidan personally. Who the fuck does he think he is!

*

Not all opinions are equal

There is a sense of weirdness in Shahidan’s anti-atheism.

Apostasy, in which a previously professed God is renounced, is the opposite to joining faith which, in turn, is typically signified by a declaration in speech or acts (such as baptism) or both. But atheism requires none of the above. It’s purely an internal process, an idea held in the heart or mind or soul, any of which, if it were to give oral expression to the thought, simply says, ‘Nah, I don’t believe in god.‘ It never says which or what god, and this is the crux of the matter.

Shahidan aims to root out that Thought.

Like, if you were to land in Mars then stumbling on something that has never existed on earth, you first have to give it a name — see, naming is the beginning of things. God is such a thing. Which then leads to the question, how do you express something that isn’t there? The next best thing, where Shahidan is concerned, is to demand a public confession from an atheist of a belief in no god; there is simply no other way to secure a conviction. Any which way you look at it, in both Shahidan’s objective and method, he is identical to the communist tyranny of Stalin and Pol Pot who typically employs the device of a TV confession followed by jail, when not executed.

The result of Shahidan’s threat? Liberal Malays scramble around like frightened rats and you see this in their tweets (above) because, foremost in their minds, they are asking: Is Shahidan and Umno and Jakim out to get me?

Take Syahredzan. Getting cold feet, he blabbers away, How did I show I am atheist? (tweet above). This reduces his only defense to within the ground rules set up by Shahidan. Which is this, a Malay believes only in Allah; that or declare yourself an apostate and believe in another God. No third option here.

It’s an absurd proposition but there you have it because, to rub salt to the injury, Shahidan says the Constitution is silent on atheism. Therefore — and this is where a Malaiyoo coconut head like him fails the logical test — the Law, the man adds, does not permit No Belief! In other words, Silence = Refusal. (There is more to be said about his argument but we’ll leave it at that. The point? What a fucking pig head: were these Malaiyoo Cabinet members born out of their mothers’ asses? Poop….)

Worse is to come for the like of Syah Redzan, Shahidan could make atheism a criminal offense, after the TV confession of course.

Atheism requires some elaboration alongside its associated concept, apostasy, because these things don’t exist in the Far East Asian lexicon, languages, traditions and thoughts, at least not until the arrival of Scottish and Orang Putih motherfuckers.

Within both Islamic and Christianity dogma contains the tyrannical idea that there is only ‘One True God’ and no other. This tyranny is central. It gave rise to religious regulations subsequently extended to criminal laws that are associated with chopping heads and ISIS terror. All of which are linked to the Arabic life styles concerning terms such as murtad (apostate), munafik (Muslim by pretense or appearances only) and especially kafir (non-believer, that’s believing in other gods).

From Christians such as Yeo Bee Yin or Hannah Yeoh their equivalent of the murtad, for example, is the Infidel (it’s in the Bible). This is completely anti-Confucian and anti-Chinese because we never classify people in such moralistic terms. It goes to explain why in China, for example, we despise Christianity because it breaks up families into categories with which Christians then act according to the divisions. This way of life is identical to the Islamic way, to the way PAS and Umno do things and treat people.

It is this context that Shahidan is going after atheists because, where the previous case concerns deviancy or belief in other gods, atheism is belief in no god; god being either Allah or Jesus.

Atheism changes apostasy’s ground rules entirely because where, previously, it was a choice of gods, now it is a choice between God and no God. But here is the stickler affecting atheism: No Belief has to, in the first place, presume the existence of God (recall the Mars analogy). The issue with atheism is, belief or no belief, not the existence of God; that is supposed to be a given. That is, you can only disbelieve a god after you first acknowledge there is even a god. Put another way, you cannot not (double negative) believe unless there is something to believe in, yes?

So, which God is being denied? As laid out in western liberalism, subscribed today by Malays like Syah Redzan, atheism became a denial of one of the Judeo-Christian/Islamic gods: Allah, Jehovah, Jesus or whatever names were given them.

In Chinese and other Asian traditions, there was no One True God to begin with. So how could we be atheist? That, as the equivalent of a negation on a negation, what’s there to deny? On a thing that isn’t there? On a Nothing?

Anglophiles, both Christian Chinese and liberal Malays, Syah Redzan likewise, these great God apologists, find themselves trapped in this merry-go-round, circular syllogism which they cannot get out of. In such a situation, other Malays, the PAS and Umno types, whip out their Quran (or Bible by the DAP Christians) to find answers for out-of-god questions — you see in the tweets above. (But can you see their stupidity?)

Where does this leave Anglophiles? Short answer, nowhere: ‘Sit tight, Syah, no worry, you don’t need to do anything; Shahidan will come knocking.

To save their asses, they might even resort to Shahidan’s defense, saying, for example, atheism is not against law, yada, yada, yada, so that this is purely a single man’s point of view. That is, Shahidan is entitled to an opinion, as if all opinions are equal and, therefore, it deserves by right to be treated equally, with equal claim to being true or right.

This ‘entitled to his opinion‘ cliche, followed by the other ‘respect his opinion‘ cliche, presumes there is any logical, rational or evidential basis in Shahidan’s anti-atheism and therefore presumes the man’s campaign is a serious candidate for truth, hence implementation, when, instead, all that it amounts to is a tyrannical, fascist absurdity which not only devalues good opinion but is especially cruel to people and deserves to be pummeled to death, along with the Shahidan fucker.

Syah Redzan’s greatest fear is, he has no defense because, once in the realm of the Abrahamic faiths, he is stuck on its terms and those terms involve life, limbs, and death.

This is why, although Islam and Christianity are both dangerous to Malaysia and so utterly inhumane, it is despairing to see Opposition politicians plunging headlong into some foreign religious morality then invoking it to save Malaysia, on the assumption that you can’t be good without the Bible or the Quran. That is, they say, Najib Razak is an abnormality, a deviant of righteousness when on point of fact he is instead a devout follower of Wahhabism along with its Arabic creeds, and so deserves to be treated with contempt. (Not 1MDB, that’s a side show.)

The notion that good can only come out of the Quran (or the Bible) is fucking absurd. We, the Chinese, have 3,000 years to prove that though without Allah, without Jesus, or because we are accused of being ungodly — or ‘Atheism’ if that’s what Anglophiles and Malays prefer — our Confucianism and Daoism treat people far, far better as humans than all the centuries of Christianity and Islam stacked up. For example, we see ourselves as open to being wrong and vulnerable because ‘learning’, ‘experiences’ and ‘growing up to be human’ are never complete and never ceases until death. This is what a Chinese education and Confucianism teach us.

A human being is not borne out of a machined mold into which the godly of Malaysia attempt to fit other people back in. The west is only beginning to discover — Cogito Zero Sum — what we, Chinese, have been saying for millennia:

To learn is to accept that one’s growth—the endless process of becoming who they will be—depends on engaging the strangeness within themselves (the part that is perpetually open, unpredictable) as much as interacting with a strange world of knowledge that they can absorb but never know in its entirety on their own. They must share in it with others. It belongs to no one, and so it belongs to everyone; this is the radically communist (or “commonist”) core of learning itself. The same goes for consciousness and selfhood: both are open things, and both are as dependent on you as they are on other people.

That, however, has yet to catch on among Anglophiles in Malaysia, these cultural copycats. So they continue to follow the Islamic and Judeo-Christian traditions under which their conduct, that is, their acts and words that they exhibit, have already been determined beforehand, depending on whether (if at all) they read the Bible or the Quran. Those are their ultimate and only reference points. Hence, Shahidan says Islam has this instruction so he goes up and down the country hunting for atheists — to ‘fix’ them! Is there, truly, in this world any greater motherfucker.

To make matters worse in Malaysia, this fucking God is in the Constitution and the Rukun Negara, both ready now at the beck and call of Shahidan, Hadi Awang, et al, for use to grind you, Syah Redzan and others to dust.

The like of Perkasa and Ibrahim Ali, even the PKR and DAP, think that the Constitution is guarantor of the Malay life. Yes and true, a fucked up life if that’s what Malays want. It’s defective, full of holes, any of which is now the curse of the Malays and should be ripped apart if Harapan truly and rationally have people’s welfare at heart.

Here’s a warning to Shahidan Kassim, et al: Don’t touch any Chinese, and don’t take this warning lightly. We now play for keeps, you piece of motherfucker.

***

新的证据,纳吉拉扎 Najib Razak,Low Taek Jho (Jho Low) 刘特佐,使用1MDB欺骗 IPIC

后来1MDB违反了与中国铁路工程总公司的合同

纳吉拉扎和刘特佐和 1MDB的欺诈行为早在2007年6月就开始了而不是2009年。 他们的主要联系人是阿拉伯人。 今天是中国人。详情点击证据参考 沙捞越报告Sarawak Report .

关于刘特佐和美国检察官想交易以避免起诉

简单来说,我们正在和欺诈者合作

情况依然阴沉,不稳定

我们浸湿了头现在唯一的解决办法是拖。延拖到今年或下年一个新的政府

*

以下电子邮件之间刘特佐阿拉伯人

https://i2.wp.com/i1.sarawakreport.org/1/5/4/5/0/1545048697469bdecfb724437301ceb61902f77e.jpg

*

https://i1.wp.com/i1.sarawakreport.org/d/b/b/8/8/dbb88a524dc91312fab345cea5333378c7fcffa5.jpg

*

这是假的,创造的

https://i0.wp.com/i3.sarawakreport.org/7/2/d/9/6/72d96a6170098be5298a7d3b04c4173ebec6527e.jpg

***